In a fight between Greenwald and Taranto, always bet on Taranto. He got it right and Greenwald was caught spilling the beans about the Lefties' real purpose in the whole "Tune in, turn on, drop out" farce of the last 45 years.

Okay: I just went back and watched the Greenwald clip. Ann: I have to agree that you have put A LOT of words into his mouth. If you want people to be fair with your words, you should afford others the same courtesy.

Greenwald's tweet to Taranto asserting that Taranto "distorted & misunderstood" what Greenwald said is accurate. This is unsurprising if Taranto bases his understanding of Greenwald's position on your column, given that, (as I said in that thread), your own representation of Greenwald's (and "the lefties'") point was willfully skewed.

Greenwald would probably help his case if he could learn to express himself, consisely, in writing. Very few people are going to bother to watch video -- of anybody -- and Greenwald is notorious for never using 1 word where 1000 will do, so I would guess most people look at the link, think "life's too short for this", and read Althouse's gloss instead.

That was always my take on it. I meant to ask Bob Mould about it the one time I had him cornered, but he was a jerk I never got around to it. Ditto for burning questions to Quiet Riot's Kevin Dubrow (same show). Complete ass.

Back around 1998, Kevin Dubrow had done what can only be described as a ballad/Gregorian chant version of "Metal Health" with Bohemian Spongecake. I actually kinda liked the tune, so when I saw we were getting Dubrow, I made it a point to talk to him backstage about it. He went from nice to pissed at the mention of it, saying he hated it, hated having done it, but agreed to do it because B.S. offered to buy him a $2000 computer.

Nope, only the tattered, wrinkled remnants of both. This was 2003 in a little venue (maybe 1000 fire code?) as part of a traveling "monsters of metal" show we snagged. I don't know if we even filled the place up.

I do know that a few weeks later, we got The Fixx and packed the place with Gen X'rs.

While I confess to owning Quiet Riots "Metal Health" album (on three different formats no less..the first bought while I was still in high school) Their whole career happened because they covered an earlier British group called Slade. Two of their biggest hits "Cum On Feel the Noize" and "Mama Weer All Crazee Now" were originally Slade songs.

I don't hear Greenwald's complaint. Ann wasn't quoting him, she wasn't claiming to be quoting him. She was explaining some results that follow logically from his presentation, in her opinion. He may not agree, but that's his business.

Slade were great...infinitely better in every way than Quiet Riot. Slade did a beautiful version of John Sebastian's "Darlin' Be Home Soon", featured in Francis Ford Coppola's first big studio feature, YOU'RE A BIG BOY NOW, starring Peter Kastner. (A fun, quirky movie, as I recall.)

Greenwald is one of the most cogent and valuable public voices of the present times, his sometimes inelegant writing style notwithstanding. (He has improved over time, and in his public appearances he tends to be more concise in his speaking than he can be in his prose.)

"Okay: I just went back and watched the Greenwald clip. Ann: I have to agree that you have put A LOT of words into his mouth. If you want people to be fair with your words, you should afford others the same courtesy."

I didn't put the words in his mouth. I added a layer of interpretation to his words. That's my specialty and I'm proud of it.

Greenwald's comments could lead to many different conclusions, depending on the context. Ann selected the most ridiculous of them.

I---a nutjob libertarian---could have made very similar remarks about the War on Drugs.

After numerous posts about this or that stupid Isthmus "reporter" putting words into her mouth, I would have expected better from Ann.

Also, I note that the original post referred to the "lefty" case for legalizing drugs.

This post refers to "The Libertarian Case Against Legalizing Drugs."

What's up with that? Is Ann trying to say that libertarians should be against drug legalization because the War on Drugs causes people to mistrust government? That makes no sense at all. As if the end-goal of libertarianism is to get people to mistrust an abusive government; rather than to end the government abuses.

Ann should adopt the Wiener-defense and claim that someone hacked into her account.

AA: But if A, then B, then C and D, so A will inevitably lead to C and D.

GG: I didn't say A would lead to C and D! You completely distorted and misunderstood what I said!"

Although you think you have shown where AA is on point and Greenwald is not, your diagramming shows where AA distorts GG's point.

If A leads to B, then B may lead to C, D, E, and so on, (or not). But what C, D, E, and so on will be are not fixed outcomes. AA may define C, D, E and so on as this and that, while GG may define them as thus and so.

You and AA may believe that GG's position will lead to (and is an encouragement of) the expanding embrace of the "nanny state," but GG may say it will lead to fewer people trapped in the state's iron clutches, in the form of people freed from prison--or never having to face that likelihood.

"As if the end-goal of libertarianism is to get people to mistrust an abusive government; rather than to end the government abuses."

Libertarians should want both; they're not mutually exclusive.

Democrat 'libertarians' want social license for sex (except hetero missionary type in monogamy), drugs (except smoking and alcohol), and rock and roll (except bands with umlauts), but state control of everything else, including government management of the consequences of said freedoms.

Some horrid morning person was in line with me to buy coffee this morning and was trying to engage me 30 minutes after I'd awoke about their trip to Harry Potter way early this morning.

I think the crossed arms, dark sunglasses worn indoors, and answers consisting of grunts and mutters would have disuaded her, but she plowed right on through my grouchy defenses to regal me with her post-midnight cinematic adventure.

Morning people must be lined up and shot...preferably some time after lunch. Morning people who are Harry Potter fans go first.

Oh...I remember when there was a minor tempest in a teabag about Greenwald's alleged sockpuppetry. I didn't know the name(s) of his supposed sockpuppets.

I do not think it has ever been proved Greenwald was posting under other names, although I think it was shown they were originating from his IP address. Given his comments at the time, I tend to believe it was his boyfriend making those posts, although whether with Greenwald's knowledge and encouragement or not I cannot say, and neither can anyone else. It may have been simply a case of someone thinking they needed to "defend" their loved one, whom they perceived as being unfairly criticized. Or, yes, it may have been an unseemly bit of ego and hubris originating with Greenwald himself.

That said, it does not impeach Greenwald's work in the least, or diminish the force and value of his critiques of the wretched state of affairs of our affairs of state.

Back when I was a serious fanboy here of my ol law prof, I recall her dissing Greenwald on more than one occasion as being long-winded and unreadable, and as being somewhere out there on the extreme left. At the time I didn't read him and had no interest in doing so, so I pretty much took those criticism at face value. Since those days I've become more and more libertarian. As a result of becoming ever more libertarian, I discovered Greenwald, and count him as among my very favorite bloggers. He is consistently incisive and eminently readable. Although I didn't read him in the early days, I gather from what he writes now that his views have evolved considerably. I believe to be a coherent libertarian is to be of the "left." I'm in that camp, and I'd describe Greenwald as being in that camp to. I think Ann was putting a lot of words in Greenwald's mouth when she characterized his bloggingheads clip as advocating nanny-statism.

Taranto: "...it's unreasonable to think that legalization of drugs would not result in at least some of the sort of government expansion of the sort Greenwald desires. "

Even if true, this is is a weak argument. A lot of Americans don't understand just how big, cruel, invasive, immoral and unAmerican the drug war is. People are being killed, robbed of their rights and ruined right under the right-thinking people's noses.

It's a kind of bigotry that allows them to say: "They're just druggies, they deserve what they get."

Even if Greenwald got his government hand in the till, it would not compare to the immorality done in all of our names now.

I'd prefer my neighbor be overtaxed, rather than have his dog shot, family terrorized and him dragged to jail, because some street criminal lied to the cops telling them that he had some non-approved plants growing in his yard.

This happens everyday. Innocent families are assaulted in their beds, and people killed for this insanity. And not using drugs does not protect you. The cops are hysterical on this shit.

Not to mention the violent crimes being committed in the next block while the majority of our law enforcement resources are busy all day chasing, processing and guarding nonviolent drug offenders.

Scott M: I take the left to be in favor of the distribution and against the concentration of power (economic and political). This understanding of left and right is supported by the historic origination of these terms in identifying the opposing factions in the French Assembly following the French Revolution by what side they sat on. To be a "left libertarian" is to believe that much of the economic equality that exists is caused by the State, and that the concentration of power is inimical to liberty.

Yes this blog is all about us being able to add our layer of interpretation, which I why I suggested the right's approach to drug, spearheaded by the great William Bennet, is one of drug wars which incarcerate thousands for pot use giving the state huge control over the population and how that is so much better than state run rehabilitation programs. Althouse leads are just starting points and not necessarily accurate reports of the total picture.

I meant, of course, to write that "much of the economic INequality that exists is caused by the State." And of course absolute economic equality is neither a possibility nor a desirable goal. But more economic equality would exist in the absence of State intervention in the free market, and this greater degree of economic equality would itself be more conducive to liberty.

The use of the term "left" as it applied to who sat where after the French revolution doesn't apply to contemporary American politics. Were do most contemporary designs for concentrations of government power and government planning come from?

Further, as a card-carrying libertarian, I can honestly say I've never met another libertarian that had gave any credence to the government providing economic equality. In order to provide economic equality, you have to have government involvement, planning, and control. How in the world is any of that libertarian, a movement that calls for less of each?

The goal of equality is at odds with liberty, unless everyone wants the exact same thing.

Are those desiring or capable of more expected to control themselves for the sake of equality? And what level is the right one for us to settle on.

I think the State can increase equality. It can increase economic equality, educational equality, religious equality, thought equality, speech equality - all kinds of equality are more easily enforced than happen naturally.

When people think of equality they always imagine a scenario of their own making. Maybe the state could have department of scenarios to get everyone in line.

"Cook - It is a bit of a coincidence that Greenwald's Brazilian boyfriend happens to be just as pompous and wordy as he is, doncha think?"

As I understand it, Greenwald's boyfriend was not fluent in English when they first became involved. Perhaps he was cutting and pasting from Greenwald's published work. Or, perhaps it actually was Greenwald.

"Greenwald should attempt to refute the reductio or state that such reductio is, itself, absurd."

Why? That would give credence to and require more time than is warranted by the self-evident misrepresentation of Greenwald's position. One might as well rake the time to argue against the existence of frost giants or sprites or fairies.

Cook: For your information, Mr. Greenwald has written a New York Times bestselling book on executive authority, broken a story on his blog about wiretapping that led to front-page stories on most major newspapers in the country, and Russ Feingold read from my blog...

If A leads to B, then B may lead to C, D, E, and so on, (or not). But what C, D, E, and so on will be are not fixed outcomes. AA may define C, D, E and so on as this and that, while GG may define them as thus and so.

The Ipad2 is great Titus. The wife just got one and she is having a lot of fun with it. You have lot's of games and can get some great music off of Pandora. We bought a little speaker attachment and used it by the pool. Everyone danced to the hits of the eighties.

"Greenwald should attempt to refute the reductio or state that such reductio is, itself, absurd."

You say: Why? That would give credence to and require more time than is warranted by the self-evident misrepresentation of Greenwald's position. One might as well rake the time to argue against the existence of frost giants or sprites or fairies.

Er, Greenwald has already given credence to Prof A's reductio by whining about it, without explaining why it is wrong. That leads me to believe that he has no answer to her reductio other than he feels that it's, well, "self evident" that she's a notorious distorter, so there & QED & nynna, nynna, nynna.

Now, you merely add that the wrongness of her reductio is "self evident".

Human League, Thompson Twins, Frankie Goes To Hollywood, Haircut 100, Culture Club, Eurythmics, Kajagoogoo. In the 80's my hair went down in my face like one of those goth kids in South Park, although I wasn't goth because goth was after 80's euro music. I was going for the lead singer of Human League where you have to tilt you head back and get the hair out of the face.

My Indian UK husband and I talk like Jodie Foster in the movie Nell and Sean Penn in the movie I Am Sam to each other.

Pandora is the best thing since a polio vaccine. During the radio years, I was up on all the new bands coming down the pike, but these days I simply don't have the time. The genetic model they're using works quite well along with your thumbs up and down.

It's allowed me to discover "new" bands like Death Cab For Cutie and Florence + The Machine. With the outlets I normally use, I never would have discovered them otherwise.

The Greenwald complaint seems a little cry-babyish. Our genial hostess gave an interpretation or analysis of his remarks.

He can reasonably deny or refute her offerings, but her post wasn't underhanded. She invited readers to hear his own words as he spoke them. Further, the readers knew it was an excerpt; it was up to the readers to decide if they wanted to hear more.

Did Greenwald say something in the larger piece that directly contradicts Professor Althouse's analysis? I don't know; I chose not to pursue it.

I don't much care about Greenwald, one way or the other. I read him once in awhile, find his bombast funny, his posture toward Israel vile, and his all-but-certain sockpuppetry hilarious.

I'm sure youre intentions are of the highest order, and you're a civil sort, so we'll leave things at this:

The first principle of the Left has been to increase the power of the state at the expense of the market. There may well be good intentions at the center of this--though the amount of dead in states that emphasize Communist/Socialist thought leads me to think otherwise--but it can't plausibly be argued that Statists want to devolve power to individuals.

Practically put, a left Libertarian is a someone who is a liberal/progressive on economic matters and a Libertarian on so called lifestyle issues, like drugs and sexual/personal relations.

Not at all. Greenwald's commentary stands or falls on its own merits. When he offers statements of purported fact, one can check his facts for accuracy or error, truth or falsehood. When he offers opinion or draws conclusions from the facts he offers, one can consider whether he is internally consistent and logical, and, if his facts are correct, whether the conclusions he draws are reasonable or not.

In sum, it is his professional published work that is pertinent to his creditbility, not any personal eccentricities or failings, not any minor peccadillos involving sock puppets.

One may have sound or unsound reasons to disagree with his conclusions, but he is entirely credible as an analyst of the manifold ills of our empire as it thrashes about wantonly in its waning years.

"It wasn't a 'tempest in a teapot' Cook, it was in fact the capstone on Greenwald discrediting himself."

I didn't say it was a "tempest in a teapot."

Much as you would like to believe or present it as "the capstone on Greenwald discrediting himself," it was no such thing. Those events happened at a time when he was still little-known and little-read. In the years since, he has become ever more visible in the media, and his voice is, contrary to so many other of the omnipresent talking heads from media and the government who pollute our public discourse, one of rare seriousness and reliability.

Robert Cook wrote, Or, yes, it may have been an unseemly bit of ego and hubris originating with Greenwald himself.

Saying Greenwald may have a bit of ego and hubris is like saying molten lava may be a bit warm.

That said, it does not impeach Greenwald's work in the least, or diminish the force and value of his critiques of the wretched state of affairs of our affairs of state.

"Does not impeach"? If the value of his work is so great, why was he himself so unsure of it as to use sock puppets to fake support?

But in any case, there isn't a lot of value to impeach. There's not much more value in Greenwald than there is in Keith Olbermann. I'd call Greenwald a hypocritical, lying-by-omission polemicist, but I'm sure he doesn't need the flattery.

(And I'm so impressed by Cook's metathesis! He's absolutely Kennedy-esque! Obama could take lessons from him!)

As Karl Hess says in the piece I linked to, most liberals are to the "right" of most conservatives, because they firmly believe in bureaucracy and concentrated power, in the rule of the few wise over the ignorant masses. I despise liberals as much as I suspect you do.

My use of the terms "left" and "right" may be unorthodox and contrary to common usage, but my usage of these terms is not peculiar to me, and there is value in this usage, which I indicated in a comment above finds support in history. There is a fine tradition in this country of hating "the Man." There is a class war in this country, and it's between the political class and the productive class.

That's all well and good, John, and I'm not ignorant at all in the historic context of the words left and right. I'm also aware of the difference between what we now commonly consider "liberal" versus what a "classical liberal" would believe in. Finally, I'm also aware of the nice trick the progressives pulled when they successfully ascribed violence and coercion on the part of authority to the right.

Basically, it boils down to this and doesn't need to be any more complicated. From left to right;

Absolute Tyranny...moderates...absolute anarchy.

The greater government control, interference, planning, etc, the further left you go. The less, the further right. Libertarians do not espouse anarchy. They espouse the least amount of centralized government required for a civilized society to work. In the case of my compatriots in STL Libertarian groups, that basically boils down to Constructionist.

That's funny, because by my lights and Karl Hess' (who was Barry Goldwater's speech writer) the greater government control, interference, planning, etc, the further RIGHT you go. The less, the further LEFT.

Scott M: Thanks for giving me the opportunity to bring this back around to the subject of Ann's post. One of Greenwald's greatest services has been to demonstrate that Obama = Bush. You should read him sometime.

Maybe the terms "left" and "right" are not terribly helpful? Even "liberal" and "conservative" don't work, if one wants to talk about both historical perspectives and current situations back and forth.

Scott M said ... "Does that mean you think universal health care is a left-wing or a right-wing cause?"

It's a right-wing cause. As Greenwald recently wrote (on July 7th): "Congressional Democrats began the health care debate by categorically vowing -- in writing, by the dozens -- never to support any health care bill that did not contain a public option (on the ground that it would be little more than a boon to -- an entrenchment of -- the private health insurance industry) ... (and that debate followed the same template as the deficit battle: the White House publicly pretending to advocate for a public option while leading the way in private to ensure it never happened)."